Elevating Women: What is in it for men?

a reply to: dawnstar
I think manners were started for practical reasons than gender. Doors when that tradition started, probably weighed 200 pounds, and women had to
wear and hold heavy long garments. But, it does stir positive feelings between two people.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: dawnstar
I think manners were started for practical reasons than gender. Doors when that tradition started, probably weighed 200 pounds, and women had to
wear and hold heavy long garments. But, it does stir positive feelings between two people.

its so ingrained in some of us that it would be impossible to stop.

I hold doors for anyone. its not that i enjoy interacting with them (i don't), but im compelled to hold doors for people and give them a polite
greeting as they pass. make witty replies to those who give me one first.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: dawnstar
I think manners were started for practical reasons than gender. Doors when that tradition started, probably weighed 200 pounds, and women had to
wear and hold heavy long garments. But, it does stir positive feelings between two people.

Actually, politeness (manners) goes back before then.

Manners are the group-defined, unwritten social rules that "everybody knows." Even animals have social rules and will kick out of the group the ones
that defy the rules. The rules-defiers generally get the leftovers of everything. Social and political leaders set fads and manners... so some of
our manners come from the famous and wealthy and not necessarily rulers.

Different types of manners develop as one culture comes into contact with another. The "Southern manners" of today are derived in part from (no
kidding) plantation slaves who tended children - so a subtle blend of some African customs. Manners in the Northwest also have an influence from the
Native American tribes there.

Every society develops these rules in different ways. Much of European/American mannerisms come from the French courts and before and the ideas of
chivalry.

originally posted by: dawnstar
but well, I often times get some really strange, possibly offended looks from men, even the elderly old man I held the door open for yesterday.

is me being polite really that offensive to your male egos?

Doesn't seem to bother Texans (that I can tell.) I've always held the door for men if I got there first. Or women. Or kids. I think in Texas the
rule may be "if you got there first it's awfully nice of you to hold the door for someone."

Following the traditional stereotyping of the female gender with 'aggressivemess' (deliberately misspelled) as I call it, is putting women in your
preconceived place or role of your making and holding both genders in a closed box.

The word prejudice comes from the word pre-judge. We pre-judge when we have an opinion about a person because of a group to which that individual
belongs. A prejudice has the following characteristics. It is based on real or imagined differences between groups. It attaches values to those
differences in ways that benefit the dominant group at the expense of minorities. It is generalized to all members of a target group.

This is not all about the lot of women. The conventions damage men too. Evidence suggests that there are even fewer gender-subversive stories aimed at
boys than there are at girls. The same evidence that shows boys are associated with adventure, danger, bravery, authority also reveals the taboo of
demonstrating 'female' qualities. This gets less attention because, the argument goes, why would anyone want to claim weakness, timidity,
vulnerability? (Trans women often report being asked the same questions after their decision to transition: 'Why would you give up male privilege? Why
descend the ladder of social worth?') And yet stereotypical forms of masculinity and the expectations they produce are part of explaining why so many
more men than women fail to address depression and other mental health issues. Many of the issues themselves arise out of frustrations at not
fulfilling designated social roles ('provider', say) or are the result of bullying for transgressing gendered norms. Suicide is the most common cause
of death for men under 50. The privileges of 'robust' masculinity, it seems, can be as double-edged as the supposed safeties of traditional
'protected' femininity.

Looking beyond the state, Mary Beard appeals to 'consciousness raising'. The internet can solve the problems of scale which limited this as a tool for
feminists in the 1970s, but it can't do all that much about another problem they faced: backlash. There is significant money and power behind
maintaining the conventions just as they are. And can 'consciousness raising' really help to stop the kinds of creeping, insidious sexism that so
easily escapes the law and that is, so often, relatively unwitting? Maybe. But there are good reasons to be pessimistic. Not least because pessimism
can serve to remind us just how entrenched a problem we face. Pessimism is not, however, the same as fatalism; it means recognising how difficult
change is to effect but it doesn't mean that nothing can be done. Beard is right: more people – men and women – need to be aware of the social
conventions which underpin so much gender inequality. And we certainly need more men to take an active role in publicly debunking them. The difficulty
remains in working out how those very conventions don't stop the story from ever getting through.

Social psychologist Thomas F. Pettigrew declares: "It is commonly held that attitudes must change before behavior; yet social psychological research
points conclusively to the opposite order of events as more common. Behavior changes first, because of new laws or other interventions; individuals
then modify their ideas to fit their new acts." Anthropologist Benjamin D. Paul adds: "We assume that people base their actions on reasoning and that
the remedy for erroneous action is to correct the erroneous reasoning. But the reverse of this proposition probably comes closer to the truth. People
think the way they do because they behave the way they do, and their behavior is modeled on the behavioral patterns of their culture. People
rationalize more often then they reason."

originally posted by: dawnstar
but well, I often times get some really strange, possibly offended looks from men, even the elderly old man I held the door open for yesterday.

is me being polite really that offensive to your male egos?

Doesn't seem to bother Texans (that I can tell.) I've always held the door for men if I got there first. Or women. Or kids. I think in Texas the
rule may be "if you got there first it's awfully nice of you to hold the door for someone."

I do the same. On occasion I do accept when an elderly man holds a door for me to be chivalrous.. I always do the cliche thing and give them a sweet
smile and thankyou.

If however a random man puts down a drink in front of me insisting I drink it with "don't be ungrateful!" speech I'm liable to throw it in his face.

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
Sexual sobriety as you put it is hardly a middle course. It's like you are wrapping up a misogynist view like "don't have sex out of wedlock" in a
lame New Age verbiage.

I think WillTell's train of thought regarding women's sexual sobriety and responsibility relates directly with the failure of the 70's sexual
revolution to produce the effect we had hoped for, that being the de-objectification of women as sexual objects and the realization and respect of
women as natural sexual beings.

With the rise of the head of the beast residing in porn, due to easy access on the internet and the pushback from different religious opposing values
towards women's sexual emancipation and power and control over her own body, we now have to deal and act accordingly with this growing monster and
ever-continuing repressive norms.

So, what is in it for some men and women to continue the objectification (sexual and otherwise) of each other? This answers it well for me ...
"treating people as de-personalized objects of desire instead of individuals with complex personalities" ... self-gratification, selfishness - a lack
of concern for the feeling of others - a personality disorder.

Saguy’s study is one of the first to provide evidence of the social harms of sexual objectification – the act of treating people as
“de-personalised objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities”. It targets women more often than men. It’s apparent in
magazine covers showing a woman in a sexually enticing pose, in inappropriate comments about a colleague’s appearance, and in unsolicited looks at
body parts. These looks were what Saguy focused on.

Wow. I think somehow the title of the thread got lost. The thread was supposed to be "What's in it for men to elevate women?"

Historically, men got flushing toilets by elevating women. The first flushing toilets in households came from the island of Crete, like at Knossos.
During that period women were 1st hand citizens and men were described as 2nd class citizens. Women would hold town meetings where the women did vote
on issues and in historical descriptions, men were supposed to sit in the back of the room during the town voting meetings on Crete.

When patriarchical groups invaded Crete, the flushing toilets and Crete's advanced plumbing system was lost. And patriarchical society never tried to
use flushing toilets again until....

Women were elevated again in America. Once women acquired the right to vote and after WWII, flushing toilets once again came to every household.

The more women in elevated positions, the more technologically advanced a civilzation becomes. Reasons being ...
1. A new market of female buyers
2. A market of women wanting convenience, pushing new inventions for their convenience
3. Competition in the work force between men and women

Societies that refuse to elevate women are impoverished, 3rd world countries. And they can never become technologically advanced UNTIL they elevate
their women.

Why is it men doing all the inventing then? What are these elevated women doing while men invent these technologies?

You haven't delineated exactly what connection there is between Minoan toilets and 20th century American toilets, aside from some vague statements
about elevated women. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

I thought modern feminists didn't acknowledge any fundamental differences between men and women. "Gender is a social construct" after all. But here
you seem to implying that women naturally seek domestic comfort while men don't. Why is that?

Why is it men doing all the inventing then? What are these elevated women doing while men invent these technologies?

You haven't delineated exactly what connection there is between Minoan toilets and 20th century American toilets, aside from some vague statements
about elevated women. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

I thought modern feminists didn't acknowledge any fundamental differences between men and women. "Gender is a social construct" after all. But here
you seem to implying that women naturally seek domestic comfort while men don't. Why is that?

The fundamental difference pertaining to this specific point is that women have and still do shoulder more of the workload than men and it is no
wonder women will invent or push for technologies that make their workload lighter and life more efficient...it is a long way to the outhouse. Again,
what is in it for some men? How about a realized sense of humantarianism and justice in eliminating inequalities experienced by groups of people of
which they do not belong and have no first-hand knowledge but use reasoning and trust to believe others' plights do exist. Again, it appears when men
join in to assist and fight the fight, then we all rise - not so much in third world countries where women are considered as chattel, but the fight
continues there as well.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.